You don't need to start with suggestions I have a blinkered view on this. No one reasonably would conclude I cannot appreciate the whole argument. I would be quite happy to see cars banned from most city centre areas and restricted to 10mph in areas where there is a mix of pedestrians, cyclists and such. I happen to favour complete separation where possible. I don't agree increasing separation will automatically result in drivers polarising to the view cyclists should not be on the road. Even if it does that is a problem to be dealt with rather than a reason not to go ahead with creating more safe discrete cycle ways. For the foreseeable future of course cars and bicycles will share most of the network.

Addressing the attitudes of drivers is not an alternative to providing more safe cycle routes. It is something that should be done in parallel. However, no amount of attitude changing will make travelling along a busy carriageway where the average speed of traffic is 50+ safe for cyclists.

For those scenarios most intelligent and reasonable people would see the need for separation.

1. Complete separation is never going to happen in our lifetimes.2. The more instances where cyclists are marginalised - because there are facilities in other areas, will have them seen as the exception and not the rule.3. Cyclists have had to co-exist with motorised traffic on 50+ roads for decades. But all the same - separation due to higher speed traffic, doesn't mean it should be done everywhere - nor that the argument applies everywhere. And realistically, will never be everywhere, in the foreseeable.4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?

Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing!

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.

4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?

Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.... that was just a happy PR advantage Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra

We_are_Stevo wrote:

Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing!

4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?

Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra

Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.

Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing!

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.

Not disputing that, just that I have my 'chores' to get through before SWMBO gets home...

_________________I would offer to help but I'm only an 'Engineer' so what do I know ??

Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing!

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions......

Not disputing that, just that I have my 'chores' to get through before SWMBO gets home...

Thats my Fridays, right there

Neil wrote:

unkleGsif wrote:

Neil wrote:

4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?

Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra

Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.

Neil, I'm not going to get into one with you again.... after all, we are singing from the same songbook.... and you will always have the last word anyway... Maybe you should spend less time trawling youtube for videos that support your hypothesis Its a one sided system of evidence any, as people will only post up examples of bad attitude and driving, not the run of the mill "ooh, look at that Audi A4 passing me with 4ft of room"... and the increase in use of cameras by cyclists will innevitably sway the "statistics"

Basically, apart from an increase in respect for each other (as if).....we need (and in no particluar order) better roads (although not at the expense of communities and the environment), better cycle paths (but not everywhere), better driver training (end of), better policing ((again, nuff said) , better prosection (and defence) and better training for cyclists

Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra

Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.

Neil, I'm not going to get into one with you again.... after all, we are singing from the same songbook.... and you will always have the last word anyway... Maybe you should spend less time trawling youtube for videos that support your hypothesis Its a one sided system of evidence any, as people will only post up examples of bad attitude and driving, not the run of the mill "ooh, look at that Audi A4 passing me with 4ft of room"... and the increase in use of cameras by cyclists will innevitably sway the "statistics"

Basically, apart from an increase in respect for each other (as if).....we need (and in no particluar order) better roads (although not at the expense of communities and the environment), better cycle paths (but not everywhere), better driver training (end of), better policing ((again, nuff said) , better prosection (and defence) and better training for cyclists

Never going to happen thoI'm out

G

You seem to be struggling with coherency, as much as anything else - I referenced YouTube in one post, in a reply on a point that's not related to the point you have taken issue with me. Despite all your amateur dramatics you just seem to want to argue against me, rather than what was in the post(s) you were replying to.

As to the remains of your rant, it's you who's taken this ad hominem, both now, and in the past, with the stroppy, self-righteous pm you sent me the last time you spat your dummy with me.

No doubt to be concluded with a whole "and this is why I hate posting on here" tantrum.

Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing!

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.

guess I was being a little optimistic, suspect some good points being missed here, sadly,

and the narcissistic motorists (those significant few that are self obsessed rather than all motorists) are are safe for another day............

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum